YEAR 2002 ANNUAL REPORT

N F L I S
N AT I O N A L

FORENSIC

L A B O R AT O R Y

I N F O R M AT I O N

SYSTEM
 CONTENTS
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Section 1
National and Regional Estimates . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Drug Items Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Drug Cases Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Section 2
Major Drug Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Narcotic Analgesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Benzodiazepines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Club Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Anabolic Steroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Stimulants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Section 3
Drug Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 Cocaine Combinations . . . . . . . . . . .16
3.2 Heroin Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Methamphetamine
Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Section 4
Drug Purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 Heroin Purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2 Cocaine Purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Section 5
Drugs Identified by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Appendix A: National Estimates

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Appendix B: Participating
and Reporting Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . .24

Appendix C: NFLIS Benefits

   

& Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendix D: NFLIS Interactive

Data Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2
Fore word

It is with great pleasure that I present the 2002 Annual Report for the
National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS), a DEA program
that collects drug analysis results and related information from state and local
forensic laboratories across the country. As the nation’s primary authority for
enforcing the nation’s drug laws, the DEA is continuously developing infor-
mation tools that support strategic and operational activities at all levels. NFLIS
has proven to be a valuable resource, providing timely and geographically specific
information on emerging drug problems and on specific drug characteristics.
This information can assist the DEA and other drug control agencies in tracking
drug trafficking and abuse patterns across the United States and beyond.
Since its inception in 1997, NFLIS has emerged as a fully operational system
consisting of 187 forensic laboratories, including 35 state systems and 55 local or
municipal laboratories. Over the next year, we will continue to expand the NFLIS
partnership in an effort to include all laboratories that regularly perform drug
analyses, including federal laboratories operated by the DEA, the FBI, and the
Customs & Border Protection.
The DEA would like to take this opportunity to encourage federal, state,
and local forensic labs that are not currently participating in NFLIS to join this
exciting program. Our goal is to have all U.S. forensic laboratories participating
in a system that serves not only the DEA and state and local drug control
agencies but also the forensic laboratory community itself. We would like to
extend DEA’s appreciation to the laboratories that have joined the NFLIS
partnership and that are so critical to the program’s ongoing success. Thank
you again for your support.

William B. Simpkins
Acting Administrator
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

   

3
 The National Forensic Laboratory Information System
(NFLIS) is a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)–
sponsored program that systematically collects results
INTRODUC
from drug analyses conducted by state and local forensic
laboratories. The nation’s forensic laboratories represent
a unique source for monitoring drug abuse and trafficking
Marysville
in the United States, including the diversion of legally Seattle
manufactured drugs into illegal markets. Laboratory Tacoma
Spokane
analysis data can support drug scheduling efforts by Kelso WA Coeur D’Alene

providing timely information on changing and emerging Portland Kennewick Missoula

drugs of abuse. This information can also inform drug Salem MT

Pendleton
policy and drug enforcement initiatives both nationally Springfield
Bend
and in local communities. Laboratory analysis data not Coos Bay
Ontario
only identify the specific types of substances obtained OR ID
Central Point
by law enforcement agencies and analyzed by forensic Meridian

laboratories but also provide details on characteristics such Eureka

Pocatello WY
Redding
as drug combinations and drug purity. A key advantage
Ogden
of laboratory data is that they reflect chemical analysis Chico W E S T
Salt Lake City
and have the highest degree of validity. Santa Rosa
Sacramento County
RTI International, under the direction of the DEA, Sacramento Jefferson Co.
San Francisco French Camp NV
began implementing NFLIS in September 1997. Since San Mateo Santa Clara UT
that time, NFLIS has developed as a fully operational Watsonville CO
Fresno Cedar City
system with widespread laboratory participation. As of
Fresno County CA
May 2003, 35 state systems and 55 local or municipal Las Vegas
Kern County
laboratories, representing a total of 187 individual
laboratories, had joined and are participating in NFLIS. Goleta
Los Angeles County Santa Fe
Over the next year, efforts will continue toward recruiting San Bernardino
Riverside AZ
all state and local laboratories, while also integrating NM
federally operated laboratories into the system. As an San Diego
initial step toward inclusion of federal laboratory data, this
report includes results from DEA’s System to Retrieval
Information from Drug Evidence II, which reflects
substance evidence submitted to DEA laboratories across El Paso

the country.
The 2002 Annual Report is divided into two major
Honolulu
components. Section 1 presents national and regional
estimates for the 25 most frequently identified drugs HI
during 2002. These estimates are based on drug analysis
data reported among the NFLIS national sample of
laboratories, comprising 29 state laboratory systems and
31 local laboratories, and reflect national and regional
estimates for drug items and drug cases.
The remaining sections (Sections 2–6) provide drug
analysis results for all state and local laboratories reporting AK
   

at least 6 months of data to NFLIS in 2002. These Anchorage

sections present findings for the major drug categories
including narcotic analgesics, benzodiazepines, club drugs,
anabolic steroids, and stimulants; drug combinations;
drug purity; and drugs identified in specific locations
across the country.

4
TION
ME
N O R T H E A S T
Bemidji Augusta
ND Marquette VT
MN NH
Wausau Onondaga NY MA
Sudbury
Grayling Boston
County Amherst
WI University
RI
of
Saint Paul CT MA
SD MI Bridgeport
Erie County Hartford Medical
New York City Center, Worcester
Rapid City
M I D W E S T Milwaukee Grand Rapids
Sterling Heights Newark Nassau County
Madison East Lansing Detroit Union County Hudson County
Northville Lake County PA West Trenton Little Falls
Rockford Westchester Mansfield PD Philadelphia NJ Sea Girt
IA Northern Illinois Chicago
Allegheny County Hammonton
Cheyenne DuPage County Joliet
Lowell Fort Wayne
OHCanton/
NE Des Moines Columbus PD Stark County
Morton IN Columbus Baltimore
Newark PD Baltimore County
MD
St. Joseph
IL Springfield Indianapolis Miami Valley Fairfax
DE
Denver Macon Hamilton County Anne Arundel County
Johnson County St. Charles County WV
Aurora
KS Topeka MO Fairview Heights Highland Heights VA
Evansville Richmond
Jefferson City St. Louis Ashland South Charleston Norfolk
Great Bend Carbondale Frankfort
Hillsboro Louisville Roanoke
Sedgwick County Pittsburg
Springfield
SEMO KY London
Willow Springs Raleigh
Madisonville
MSSC Regional NC
Asheville
TN

OK AR Florence Huntsville
Columbia
Amarillo
Little Rock Jacksonville Augusta SC Charleston
Batesville Decatur
Birmingham
Lubbock
S O U T H Tuscaloosa
Macon
Auburn Savannah
MS AL Midland GA
Garland Montgomary
Abilene Jackson Meridian Moultrie
Tyler Dothan
Midland LA Jacksonville
Waco Mobile
Pensacola Tallahassee
TX Gulfport Daytona Beach
Baton Rouge
Austin Pasadena New Orleans Orlando
Houston Pinellas County
Acadiana
Bexar County Harris County Tampa Indian River
FL
Sarasota County
Fort Myers
Broward County
Laredo Corpus Christi Miami-Dade

McAllen
Key West
   

Reporting State Lab System Reporting Local Lab

Participating State Lab System Participating Local Lab

No Participating State Lab System Individual State Lab

5
 Section 1 N AT IO N A L A N D R
Since 2001, NFLIS reports have
included estimates of the number
of drug items and cases analyzed by
state and local forensic laboratories
from a nationally representative
sample of laboratories. This
national sample of laboratories is
used to produce estimates of drug
items and cases identified by
forensic laboratories for the nation
and for census regions. The national
estimate methodology is described
in Appendix A. NFLIS laboratories,
including those in the national
sample, are listed in Appendix B.
   
6
This section presents national and regional estimates for
drug items and drug cases analyzed from January through
December 2002, as well as regional estimates for the 10 most
common drugs identified per 100,000 people age 15 and older.
To approximate the diversion of selected pharmaceutical drugs,
we also present estimates for the number of drugs identified
nationally by forensic laboratories per number of prescriptions
dispensed.
1.1 DRUG ITEMS ANALYZED
From January through December 2002, an estimated
1,798,045 drug items were analyzed by state and local forensic
laboratories in the United States. Drug items (or exhibits) are
typically defined as specimens within a case. Table 1.1 presents
estimates for the 25 most frequently identified drug items for
the nation and for census regions.
The top 25 most commonly identified drugs accounted for an
estimated 1,686,553 items, or nearly 94% of all drugs analyzed
by state and local laboratories in 2002. About 85% of drugs
were identified as cannabis/THC, cocaine, methamphetamine, or
heroin. For the nation as a whole, 633,321 items were identified
as cannabis/THC (35%), 564,949 as cocaine (31%), 211,916 as
methamphetamine (12%), and 113,000 as heroin (6%).
Many of the additional drugs reported in the top 25 were
substances available pharmaceutically or synthetic club drugs.
Overall, 15 of the drugs in the top 25 were controlled
substances available in pharmaceutical products. The largest
group of these types of drugs were narcotic analgesics such
as oxycodone (17,619 items), hydrocodone (16,869 items),
methadone (3,867 items), codeine (3,603 items), propoxyphene
(2,495 items), and morphine (2,424 items). Benzodiazepines
included alprazolam (20,124 items), diazepam (9,629 items),
clonazepam (6,366 items), and lorazepam (1,767 items). Two
club drugs were reported in the top 25: 3,4-methylenedioxy-
methamphetamine (MDMA) (18,382 items) and ketamine
(2,950 items). Several non-controlled drugs were reported in the
top 25, including pseudoephedrine (12,058 items), a List I
chemical used to produce methamphetamine, and carisoprodol
(2,946 items), a muscle relaxant.
E G IO N A L E S T I M AT E S
Table 1.1 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES FOR THE 25 MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED DRUGS*
Estimated number and percentage of total analyzed drug items, 2002.

Drug National West Midwest Northeast South

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Cannabis/THC 633,321 35.22% 83,593 23.36% 209,136 47.99% 91,662 33.17% 248,930 34.19%
Cocaine 564,949 31.42% 65,662 18.35% 116,348 26.70% 104,122 37.68% 278,817 38.30%
Methamphetamine 211,916 11.79% 136,686 38.20% 31,366 7.20% 550 0.20% 43,314 5.95%
Heroin 113,000 6.28% 14,124 3.95% 22,846 5.24% 39,834 14.41% 36,195 4.97%
Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 21,715 1.21% 8,861 2.48% 4,401 1.01% 4,470 1.62% 3,983 0.55%
Alprazolam 20,124 1.12% *** *** 3,847 0.88% 2,432 0.88% 12,622 1.73%
MDMA 18,382 1.02% 3,837 1.07% 2,065 0.47% 3,520 1.27% 8,959 1.23%
Oxycodone 17,619 0.98% 1,146 0.32% 3,385 0.78% 4,055 1.47% 9,033 1.24%
Hydrocodone 16,869 0.94% 1,931 0.54% 2,813 0.65% 1,571 0.57% 10,554 1.45%
Pseudoephedrine** 12,058 0.67% 4,357 1.22% 4,487 1.03% *** *** 3,198 0.44%
Diazepam 9,629 0.54% 1,211 0.34% 1,709 0.39% 1,090 0.39% 5,619 0.77%
Clonazepam 6,366 0.35% 580 0.16% 1,224 0.28% 1,965 0.71% 2,597 0.36%
Phencyclidine (PCP) 5,559 0.31% 1,921 0.54% 778 0.18% 1,885 0.68% 976 0.13%
Acetaminophen 4,473 0.25% *** *** 1,589 0.36% 100 0.04% 1,301 0.18%
Amphetamine 3,921 0.22% 1,038 0.29% 795 0.18% 430 0.16% 1,658 0.23%
Methadone 3,867 0.22% 400 0.11% 679 0.16% 1,259 0.46% 1,530 0.21%
Codeine 3,603 0.20% 542 0.15% 983 0.23% 437 0.16% 1,640 0.23%
Psilocin 3,005 0.17% 1,219 0.34% 670 0.15% 207 0.07% 909 0.12%
Ketamine 2,950 0.16% 481 0.13% 477 0.11% 1,193 0.43% 799 0.11%
Carisoprodol 2,946 0.16% 686 0.19% 477 0.11% 153 0.06% 1,630 0.22%
Propoxyphene 2,495 0.14% 170 0.05% 753 0.17% 213 0.08% 1,359 0.19%
Morphine 2,424 0.13% 458 0.13% 665 0.15% 317 0.11% 985 0.14%
Methylphenidate 1,845 0.10% 219 0.06% 543 0.12% 366 0.13% 717 0.10%
Lorazepam 1,767 0.10% 228 0.06% 559 0.13% 273 0.10% 708 0.10%
Butalbital 1,750 0.10% *** *** 1,385 0.32% 111 0.04% 232 0.03%

Top 25 Total 1,686,553 93.80% 332,079 92.81% 413,980 94.98% 262,229 94.88% 678,265 93.16%
All Other Analyzed Items 111,493 6.20% 25,726 7.19% 21,847 5.01% 14,140 5.12% 49,780 6.84%
   

Total Analyzed Items 1,798,045 100.00% 357,806 100.00% 435,827 100.00% 276,369 100.00% 728,044 100.00%

MDMA = 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
* Sample n's and 95% confidence intervals for all estimates are available from the DEA or RTI.
** Includes items from a small number of laboratories that do not specify between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
***These elements do not meet standards of precision and reliability due to their small sample sizes.
7
 Drugs reported by region adjusted for population Figure 1.2 Other selected drugs reported per 100,000
Figure 1.1 shows the number of cannabis/THC, cocaine, population 15 and older, 2002.
methamphetamine, and heroin items reported by census 18

Items Reported per 100,000 Population

16.0
West
region per 100,000 people age 15 and older. This illustrates the 16 Midwest

13.4
variation in drugs reported, taking into account the population Northeast
14
South

11.4
11.3
of each region. While these data may describe trafficking and 12

9.5
abuse patterns across the U.S., they may also reflect differing 10

8.9
8.9
8.2
7.8
7.6

7.1
8

6.7
drug enforcement priorities and laboratory policies that can

5.7

5.6
6
influence the types of drugs submitted to and analyzed by

4.1
4.1

3.9

3.7

3.4
4

2.6
2.5

2.5
2.3
laboratories. 2

0.0
Figure 1.1 Top four drugs reported per 100,000 population 0
15 and older, 2002. Aprazolam MDMA Oxycodone Hydro- Pseudo- Diazepam
codone ephedrine
413.4

450
Items Reported per 100,000 Population

West
400 Midwest Prescriptions dispensed per number of drugs identified
353.2

Northeast Many of the narcotics, depressants, and stimulants manu-

315.3

350
South
279.3

300 factured for medical use are diverted into illicit markets through
243.9
230.0
214.7

250 prescription forgery, theft, or various other methods. NFLIS

170.8

200
can provide some approximation of the extent at which many
134.2

150
of these pharmaceuticals are diverted. Table 1.2 presents the
93.3

100
62.0

54.9

estimated number of drug items reported in NFLIS per number

45.2

45.9
28.9

50
of prescriptions dispensed for selected drugs of interest.
1.3

0
Cannabis/THC Cocaine Methamphet- Heroin For the nation, methadone had the lowest ratio of prescrip-
amine
tions dispensed per drug item identified by forensic laboratories
The highest rate of cannabis/THC was reported in the (i.e., 477 prescriptions per methadone item identified in NFLIS).
Midwest (413 per 100,000), followed by the South (315 per Methadone dispensed in treatment programs is not included
100,000). The highest rate of cocaine was reported in the South in the prescription data. Diazepam, morphine, alprazolam,
(353 per 100,000), followed by the Northeast (244 per and oxycodone ranged from 1,333 prescriptions per drug item
100,000), the Midwest (230 per 100,000), and the West (134 reported to 1,647 per drug item reported. Drugs with the highest
per 100,000). Methamphetamine predominates in the West ratio of prescriptions dispensed per drug item identified were
(279 per 100,000), with a rate more than 4 times greater than codeine (9,605 per drug item reported) and propoxyphene
that reported in the Midwest (62 per 100,000) and more than (11,650 per drug item reported).
5 times greater than that reported in the South (55 per 100,000).
Heroin was reported by forensic laboratories in the Northeast
(93 per 100,000) at more than twice the rate as in the South (46
per 100,000) and the Midwest (45 per 100,000), and at more Table 1.2 PRESCRIPTIONS DISPENSED PER DRUG
than 3 times the rate reported in the West (29 per 100,000). ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN NFLIS, 2002
Figure 1.2 shows regional estimates for other selected drugs Drug items identified Prescriptions dispensed
reported per 100,000 people age 15 and older. The highest rates Drug in NFLIS per drug item identified
of pseudoephedrine were reported in the West and Midwest Methadone 3,867 477
(both 9 per 100,000), which corresponds to the large number Diazepam 9,629 1,333
of methamphetamine laboratories seized in these regions Morphine 2,424 1,542
(Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System [CLSS], El Paso Alprazolam 20,124 1,595
Intelligence Center). Oxycodone 17,619 1,647
Forensic laboratories in the South reported alprazolam (16 Clonazepam 6,366 2,368
   

per 100,000) and hydrocodone (13 per 100,000), at more than Carisoprodol 2,946 3,525
double the rate reported in other regions. The highest rates Hydrocodone 16,869 6,144
of MDMA were also reported in the South, followed by the Codeine 3,603 9,605
Northeast (8 per 100,000) and the West (8 per 100,000). The Propoxyphene 2,495 11,650
highest rates of oxycodone (11 per 100,000) were reported in *Prescription data are from IMS Health’s National Prescription
the South and the Northeast (10 per 100,000). Audit database (2002).

8
 containing the 25 most commonly identified drugs. Because
System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence II multiple drugs can be reported within a single case, the
(STRIDE) cumulative percentage for all substances exceeds 100%.
The DEA’s System to Retrieve Information from Drug An estimated 40% of drug cases reported during 2002
Evidence II (STRIDE) reflects results of substance evidence contained one or more cannabis/THC item. Cocaine was
analyzed at DEA laboratories across the country. These include identified in 36% of all cases nationally, a total of 432,736
analytical results for drug cases submitted by DEA and other cases. Nearly 13% of cases were estimated to have contained
federal law enforcement agencies, as well as from select local methamphetamine, while about 7% of cases contained heroin.
agencies. The results include drug seizures, undercover drug Alprazolam was estimated to have been contained in 16,086
buys, and other evidence obtained by law enforcement. While cases. An additional 13,910 cases were estimated to have
STRIDE captures international cases, the following analyses contained hydrocodone, 13,501 contained MDMA, and 13,180
reflect only those drugs obtained within the United States. contained oxycodone.
STRIDE results on drug purity and drug combinations are
also presented in this report. Table 1.3 NATIONAL CASE ESTIMATES
During 2002, approximately 60,763 drug items/exhibits were Number and percentage of cases containing the
reported in STRIDE. The vast majority of drugs identified were 25 most frequently identified drugs, 2002.
cocaine (31%), cannabis/THC (24%), methamphetamine (14%), Drug Number Percent
or heroin (9%). Other commonly identified drugs included
Cannabis/THC 472,978 39.75%
MDMA (4%) and pseudoephedrine (3%).
Cocaine 432,736 36.37%
Similar percentages of cocaine were reported in STRIDE
Methamphetamine 150,170 12.62%
and NFLIS (31% vs. 31%). Cannabis/THC represented a lower Heroin 81,956 6.89%
percentage of all drugs in STRIDE than in NFLIS (24% vs. Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 16,250 1.37%
35%), while the relative percentages of methamphetamine Alprazolam 16,086 1.35%
(14% vs. 12%) and heroin (9% vs. 6%) were slightly higher Hydrocodone 13,910 1.17%
in STRIDE than in NFLIS. MDMA 13,501 1.13%
Oxycodone 13,180 1.11%
MOST FREQUENTY IDENTIFIED DRUGS IN STRIDE, 2002 Diazepam 8,001 0.67%
Drug Number Percent Pseudoephedrine* 7,382 0.62%
Cocaine 18,759 30.87% Clonazepam 5,455 0.46%
Cannabis/THC 14,678 24.16% Phencyclidine 5,131 0.43%
Acetaminophen 3,721 0.31%
Methamphetamine 8,569 14.10%
Methadone 3,320 0.28%
Heroin 5,679 9.35%
Amphetamine 3,266 0.27%
MDMA 2,685 4.42% Codeine 3,004 0.25%
Pseudoephedrine 1,848 3.04% Carisoprodol 2,827 0.24%
Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 1,640 2.70% Psilocin 2,619 0.22%
GHB/GBL* 464 0.76% Propoxyphene 2,268 0.19%
Phencyclidine (PCP) 380 0.63% Ketamine 2,134 0.18%
Hydrocodone 343 0.56% Morphine 2,041 0.17%
Lorazepam 1,500 0.13%
All Other Drugs 5,718 9.41%
Methylphenidate 1,494 0.13%
60,763 100.0% Butalbital 1,296 0.11%
* Includes items/exhibits identified as gamma-hydroxybutyrate
or gamma-butyrolactone. Top 25 Total 1,266,226 106.42%
All Other Substances 82,291 6.92%
Total All Substances 1,348,517 113.34%**
   

1.2 DRUG CASES ANALYZED

Forensic laboratories also report chemical analysis results to
NFLIS at the case level. These typically describe a drug-related
incident, although a small proportion of laboratories may assign
a single case number to all drug submissions related to an
investigation. Table 1.3 provides national estimates for cases
* Includes cases from a small number of laboratories that do not
specify between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
** Multiple drugs can be reported within a single case, so the
cumulative percentage exceeds 100%. The estimated national
total of distinct cases that drug case percentages are based on
is 1,189,739.
9
 Section 2 Major drug
c at e g o r i e s
Section 2 presents analytic results 2.1 NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
for major drug categories reported Among prescription drugs, of major concern is the increasing
by NFLIS laboratories during 2002. abuse of narcotic analgesics. Narcotic analgesics are a category
These include diverted pharma- of pain medications that contain opiates and have historically
been used as heroin substitutes. Fourteen percent of all drug
ceuticals, such as narcotic analgesics
abuse-related emergency department visits in 2001 involved
and benzodiazepines, as well as narcotic analgesics (DAWN, 2003). In some areas, drug abuse
club drugs, anabolic steroids, and deaths related to narcotic analgesics exceeded deaths linked to
stimulants. It is important to note cocaine or heroin (DAWN, 2002).
differences between the results NFLIS laboratories identified 16 different analgesics
presented in this section and the representing 27,783 items during 2002, nearly 3% of all items
national and regional estimates analyzed (Table 2.1). Collectively, hydrocodone (34%) and
oxycodone (31%) accounted for a majority of all narcotic
presented in Section 1. The
analgesics reported. About a quarter of narcotic analgesics were
estimates presented in Section 1 identified as methadone (8%), codeine (7%), propoxyphene (5%),
were based on data reported by the or morphine (5%).
NFLIS national sample. Section 2
and subsequent sections reflect Table 2.1 NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
data reported by all NFLIS labora- Number and percentage of total identified
narcotic analgesics, 2002.
tories that provided 6 or more
months of data during 2002. Analgesics Number Percent
During this period, 1,034,032 Hydrocodone 9,563 34.42%
analyzed drug items were reported Oxycodone 8,660 31.17%
by NFLIS laboratories. Methadone 2,327 8.38%
Codeine 1,911 6.88%
Propoxyphene 1,526 5.49%
Morphine 1,499 5.40%
Dihydrocodeine 721 2.59%
Hydromorphone 622 2.24%
Meperidine 281 1.01%
Nalbuphine* 261 0.94%
Tramadol* 238 0.86%
Fentanyl 86 0.31%
Pentazocine 68 0.24%
   

Buprenorphine 11 0.04%
Butorphanol 8 0.03%
Oxymorphone 1 0.00%
Total Narcotic Analgesics 27,783 100.00%
*Non-controlled narcotic analgesics.

10
 Across census regions, the highest proportions of The majority of benzodiazepines reported in the Midwest,
hydrocodone were reported in the West (43%) and South Northeast, and South were identified as alprazolam (Figure 2.2).
(40%) (Figure 2.1). The Northeast reported the highest relative In the West, 44% of benzodiazepines were identified as
percentages of oxycodone (44%) and methadone (21%). In diazepam, the highest percentage of any region. Nearly a third
the Midwest, 28% of narcotic analgesics were reported as of benzodiazepines reported in the Northeast were identified
oxycodone, 24% as hydrocodone, 11% as dihydrocodeine as clonazepam.
(not shown in figure), and 10% as codeine. The West reported
the highest relative percentage of morphine (10%). Table 2.2 BENZODIAZEPINES
Number and percentage of total identified
Figure 2.1 Distribution of narcotic analgesics by region, 2002.
benzodiazepine drugs, 2002.

West Midwest Northeast South Benzodiazepines Number Percent

Alprazolam 11,316 53.52%
100%
Diazepam 5,033 23.80%
Clonazepam 3,453 16.33%
Lorazepam 898 4.25%
80% Temazepam 195 0.92%
Chlordiazepoxide 122 0.58%
Hydrocodone
Flunitrazepam 74 0.35%
Oxycodone
60% Triazolam 43 0.20%
Methadone
Codeine
Midazolam 11 0.05%
1,504
876

Total Benzodiazepines 21,145 100.00%

6,775

Other

40%
1,662

5,237
1,489

Figure 2.2 Distribution of benzodiazepines by region, 2002.

1,282
430

727

2,945
630
356

20%
242

359
506

1,074
152

374

202

961

80%

0% Total Number
Alprazolam
7,945

2,056 5,313 3,422 16,992 27,783 Diazepam

60%
Clonazepam
1,764

1,368

2.2 BENZODIAZEPINES Lorazepam

452

Other
Benzodiazepines are tranquilizers medically prescribed
to treat anxiety, stress, panic attacks, and short-term sleep 40%
932

disorders. Emergency department drug-related mentions of

901

3,188
239

benzodiazepines declined 13% between mid-year 2001 and

225

492

2002, although alprazolam mentions remained fairly stable

548

20%
1,748

during this period (DAWN, 2003). Of benzodiazepines

84

240

specified during drug-related emergency department visits,

461
113

276
36

85

48

more than a third were identified as alprazolam.

A total of 2% of all analyzed drugs in NFLIS, or 21,145 0% Total Number
   

items, were identified as benzodiazepines during 2002 (Table 1,036 3,538 2,953 13,618 21,145
2.2). More than half of benzodiazepines were identified as
alprazolam (e.g., Xanax) and nearly a quarter as diazepam (e.g.,
Valium). About 16% of benzodiazepines were identified as
clonazepam (e.g., Clonopin or Rivotril).

11
 2.3 CLUB DRUGS Figure 2.3 Distribution of club drugs by region, 2002.
Club drugs are a category that includes both clandestinely
West Midwest Northeast South
manufactured substances such as MDMA and diverted
pharmaceuticals such as ketamine. These substances became 100%
popular among teenagers and young adults in the 1990s at

5,708
all-night “rave” parties and at dance clubs, although use has
now expanded to many other settings as well (CEWG, 2003).

1,036
80%

1,467
MDMA is the most frequently abused club drug, with surveys

1,210
suggesting its use is now more common among high school
MDMA
students than cocaine ( Johnston et al., 2003).
Ketamine
Of the 12,244 club drugs identified in NFLIS during 60%
MDA
2002, the vast majority were identified as MDMA (Table 2.3). GHB/GBL
Overall, more than 3 in 4 club drugs reported, 9,421 items, Other
were MDMA. Among the other club drugs reported, 12% were
40%
identified as ketamine, 6% as 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
(MDA), and 4% as gamma-hydroxybutyrate or gamma-

514
butyrolactone (GHB/GBL).

288
High percentages of MDMA were reported in each region, 20%

244
145
140
representing 82% of club drugs in the South, 74% in the West,

568

363
77

286
72% in the Northeast, and 66% in the Midwest (Figure 2.3).

94

50
15

27
Twenty-five percent of club drugs reported in the Northeast

5
0% Total Number
were identified as ketamine, a higher percentage than reported
1,404 1,840 2,051 6,952 12,247
in 2001 (16%). The highest relative percentage of MDA
continues to be reported in the Midwest (16%).

Table 2.3 CLUB DRUGS

Number and percentage of total identified club drugs,
2002.
MDMA
Club Drug Number Percent
MDMA 9,421 76.94%
Ketamine 1,471 12.01%
MDA 764 6.21%
GHB/GBL 549 4.48%
MDEA 35 0.29%
PMA 7 0.06%
Total Club Drugs 12,247 100.00%
MDEA = Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine
PMA = p-Methoxyamphetamine
   

12
2.4 ANABOLIC STEROIDS Figure 2.4 Distribution of anabolic steroids by region, 2002.

Anabolic steroids are medically prescribed for conditions West Midwest Northeast South
such as breast cancer, anemia, testicular failure, and impotence.
Because of their effects on muscle development, anabolic 100%
steroids are commonly abused by athletes and bodybuilders
as a means for increasing strength and performance.
In 2002, 14 different anabolic steroids were reported in 80%
NFLIS, a total of 1,445 items (Table 2.4). Most commonly
anabolic steroids were identified as testosterone (40%), Testosterone
methandrostenolone (20%), nandrolone (11%), or stenozolol Methandrostenolone
(10%). Across census regions, the highest relative percentages 60% Nandrolone
of testosterone were reported in the Midwest (46%) and the Stanozolol

147

301
South (43%) (Figure 2.4). About one in five steroids in each Other
of the regions was identified as methandrostenolone.

60
40%

87
75
41
Table 2.4 ANABOLIC STEROIDS

39

67

134
Number and percentage of identified anabolic steroids,

52
20%

48
2002.

93
86
82
31
35

21
12

24
Steroids Number Percent

10
Testosterone 583 40.35%
Methandrostenolone 292 20.21% 0% Total Number

Nandrolone 162 11.21% 162 321 266 696 1,445

Stanozolol 139 9.62%
Anabolic steroids, not specified 87 6.02%
Oxymetholone 52 3.60%
Boldenone 47 3.25%
Oxandrolone 21 1.45%
Mesterolone 18 1.25%
Fluoxymesterone 16 1.11%
Methenolone 12 0.83%
Methyltestosterone 8 0.55%
Androstenedione 4 0.28%
Methandriol 4 0.28%
Total Anabolic Steroids 1,445 100.00%

   

13
 2.5 STIMULANTS Table 2.5 STIMULANTS
Stimulants are a drug category dominated by clandestinely Number and percentage of total identified stimulants,
produced drugs such as methamphetamine as well as chemicals 2002.
used to manufacture methamphetamine. Methamphetamine has
become one of the largest drug-related problems in the U.S. over Stimulants Number Percent
the past decade. While it has dominated in the West for some Methamphetamine 128,183 95.81%
time, methamphetamine trafficking and abuse has become Amphetamine 2,140 1.60%
increasingly more common in the Midwest and South. Ephedrine 1,119 0.84%
During 2002, a total of 133,795 stimulants were identified Methylphenidate 1,063 0.79%
in NFLIS, accounting for about 14% of all items reported Caffeine 642 0.48%
(Table 2.5). More than 9 in 10 stimulants, or 128,183 items, Phentermine 314 0.23%
were identified as methamphetamine. An additional 1,119 Benzphetamine 85 0.06%
items were ephedrine, a precursor chemical used to manufacture N,N-Dimethylamphetamine 61 0.05%
methamphetamine. Among other stimulants, 2,140 items were Cathinone 43 0.03%
identified as amphetamine and 1,063 items as methylphenidate
Diethylpropion 36 0.03%
(e.g., Ritalin).
Phendimetrazine 25 0.02%
Methamphetamine accounted for the vast majority of
Phenylpropanolamine 15 0.01%
stimulants reported in every region except the Northeast
(Figure 2.5). Methamphetamine represented 97% of the
Fenfluramine 11 0.01%
stimulants reported in the West, 87% in the South, and 84% Methcathinone 10 0.01%
in the Midwest. In the Northeast, 33% of stimulants were Clobenzorex 9 0.01%
reported as methamphetamine, 23% as amphetamine, and 19% Propylhexedrine 9 0.01%
as methylphenidate. Pemoline 7 0.01%
Modafinil 6 0.00%
Phenmetrazine 3 0.00%
Figure 2.5 Distribution of stimulants by region, 2002. Sibutramine 3 0.00%
West Midwest Northeast South Chlorphentermine 2 0.00%
100% Mephentermine 2 0.00%
72,127

N-Ethylamphetamine 2 0.00%
33,362
22,469

4-Methylaminorex 1 0.00%
Cathine 1 0.00%
80%
Clortermine 1 0.00%
Fenproporex 1 0.00%
Methamphetamine
Amphetamine
Mazindol 1 0.00%
60% Total Stimulants 133,795 100.00%
Ephedrine
Methylphenidate
Other
225

40%
155

130

20%
73
   

1,127
521
511
430
336

566

563
505
347
115

133
92

0% Total Number
72,814 24,267 591 36,123 133,795

14
Section 3 Drug
C o m b i n at i o n s
In addition to tracking
the types of substances identified
by state and local forensic
laboratories, NFLIS can provide
information on drug combinations
or multiple substances reported
within a single drug item.
Drug combinations reported
in STRIDE, 2002
In STRIDE, a total of 26,420
drug combinations were reported
during 2002. The most common
drug combination was methamphe-
tamine/dimethylsulfone, which
represented 16% of all reported
combinations. Methamphe-
tamine/pseudoephedrine accounted
for nearly 4% of drug combinations
reported in STRIDE. Commonly
identified cocaine-related
combinations included cocaine/
caffeine (11% of total combinations),
cocaine/lidocaine (5%), and
cocaine/procaine (4%). The most
frequently reported heroin
combinations were heroin/quinine
(4% of total combinations),
heroin/procaine (3%), and
heroin/caffeine (2%).
Mixing substances is sometimes desirable among drug
users, as the use of different drugs simultaneously can elicit
complementary effects. For example, a primary reason given
for “speedballing,” which refers to the combination of heroin
and cocaine, is the enhanced euphoric effect that cocaine
contributes to heroin. Yet taking multiple drugs concurrently
can have serious consequences, as illustrated in part by medical
examiner data. Among all drug-related deaths reported across
42 metropolitan areas in 2001, 77% involved two or more
substances (DAWN, 2003). Nine in 10 deaths involving either
heroin/morphine or narcotic analgesics involved one or more
drugs, as did 8 in 10 cocaine-related deaths.
In 2002, 11,519 of the drug items reported in NFLIS, about
1% of all items, contained two or more substances (Figure 3.1).
The four most common combinations in NFLIS during 2002—
heroin/cocaine (17%), cannabis/cocaine (10%), hydrocodone/
acetaminophen (9%), and pseudoephedrine/ephedrine (5%)—
accounted for about 40% of all combinations reported. It should
be noted that hydrocodone/acetaminophen represents a known
pharmaceutical product combination.
Figure 3.1 Distribution of drug combinations, 2002.
Heroin and Cocaine (17%)
Cannabis and Cocaine (10%)
Hydrocodone and
Acetaminophen (9%)
Pseudoephedrine and
Ephedrine (5%)
Heroin and Procaine (3%)
Cocaine and
Methamphetamine (3%)
Cannabis and
Methamphetamine (3%)
   
Methamphetamine and
Amphetamine (3%)
Cocaine and Inositol (3%)
Heroin and Mannitol (3%)
Other combinations (41%)
15
 Table 3.2 HEROIN COMBINATIONS
Total items identified as heroin combinations, 2002.
3.1 COCAINE COMBINATIONS
Cocaine, including powder and crack cocaine, was present Substance One Substance Two Number Percent
in 43% of drug combinations reported during 2002 (Table 3.1). Heroin Cocaine 1,905 16.54%
A total of 1,905 items contained heroin and cocaine, a Heroin Procaine 377 3.27%
combination commonly referred to as a “speedball.” Cocaine/ Heroin Mannitol 290 2.52%
cannabis represented 1,145 items, or 10% of all combinations,
Heroin Cannabis 248 2.15%
Heroin Caffeine 106 0.92%
and cocaine/methamphetamine 366 items (e.g., “Zoom”), over
Heroin Methamphetamine 44 0.38%
3% of all combinations. All of the remaining top 10 combina-
Heroin Lidocaine 43 0.37%
tions in Table 3.1 describe substances used to dilute cocaine.
Heroin Benzocaine 40 0.35%
These include non-controlled substances such as inositol, Heroin Inositol 32 0.28%
caffeine, boric acid, procaine, and lactose. Heroin Acetaminophen 22 0.19%
Other heroin combinations 254 2.21%
Table 3.1 COCAINE COMBINATIONS Total Heroin Combinations 3,361 29.18%
Total items identified as cocaine combinations, 2002. All Combinations 11,519

Substance One Substance Two Number Percent 3.3 METHAMPHETAMINE COMBINATIONS

Cocaine Heroin 1,905 16.54%
Methamphetamine was present in about 15% of drug
Cocaine Cannabis 1,145 9.94%
combinations reported during 2002, a total of 1,779 items
Cocaine Methamphetamine 366 3.18%
(Table 3.3). Cocaine and cannabis were the most common
Cocaine Inositol 336 2.92%
substances reported with methamphetamine. Dimethysulfone
Cocaine Caffeine 221 1.92%
Cocaine Boric acid 172 1.49% (148 items) is a diluent typically used by Mexican trafficking
Cocaine Procaine 157 1.36% organizations to cut methamphetamine (DEA, 2001).
Cocaine Lactose 108 0.94% Methamphetamine combinations that include pseudoephedrine,
Cocaine Lidocaine 56 0.49% phosphorus, or ephedrine may reflect impurities resulting from
Cocaine Mannitol 44 0.38% clandestine manufacturing processes.
Other cocaine combinations 409 3.55%
Total Cocaine Combinations 4,919 42.70%
All Combinations 11,519 Table 3.3 METHAMPHETAMINE COMBINATIONS
Total items identified as methamphetamine
3.2 HEROIN COMBINATIONS combinations, 2002.

Heroin was present in 29% of the drug combinations Substance One Substance Two Number Percent
reported in 2002, a total of 3,361 items (Table 3.2). More than Methamphetamine Cocaine 366 3.18%
half of the heroin combinations reported were identified as Methamphetamine Cannabis 359 3.12%
heroin/cocaine. Of the other substances combined with heroin, Methamphetamine Amphetamine 337 2.93%
many were substances designed to dilute heroin and provide Methamphetamine Pseudoephedrine 166 1.44%
bulk to the material. The most commonly reported excipients Methamphetamine Dimethylsulfone 148 1.28%
were procaine (a local anesthetic), mannitol, and caffeine. Methamphetamine MDMA 82 0.71%
Methamphetamine Phosphorus 57 0.49%
Methamphetamine Heroin 44 0.38%
Methamphetamine Ketamine 39 0.34%
Methamphetamine Ephedrine 26 0.23%
   

Other methamphetamine combinations 155 1.35%

Total Methamphetamine Combinations 1,779 15.44%
All Combinations 11,519

16
Section 4 DRUG PURIT Y
An important function of NFLIS
is the system’s ability to monitor
and analyze drug purity data
reported by forensic laboratories.
While a majority of state and local
laboratories perform quantitative
(or purity) analyses, most do so
only under special circumstances
such as a special request from the
prosecutor or investigating officer.
A small number of laboratories
perform quantitative analyses on a
more regular basis, most commonly
for cocaine and heroin, and report
these data to NFLIS.
Drug purity can substantially impact drug markets and drug
use trends, as well as drug-related emergencies. For example,
an increase in the purity of heroin or cocaine could result in
more unexpected reactions and overdoses. While many sources
suggest that cocaine purity has been fairly stable, many indicate
that the purity of heroin has been rising in many areas (CEWG,
2003). Due to the increase in heroin purity, intranasal delivery
has emerged as a common method of use, which makes the drug
more appealing to a larger population, including youth.
It is important to consider the laboratory policies for
conducting quantitative analysis when reviewing the individual
laboratory data, as these factors can have an impact on the
nature of the results presented. For example, some laboratories
may only conduct quantitative analysis for substances over 200
grams or 1 kilogram, while others perform analyses on a more
routine basis.
Heroin
   
17
 4.1 HEROIN PURITY Figure 4.2 Heroin purity, 2002: Massachusetts State Police
Crime Laboratory.
This section describes heroin purity analyses reported 25

by the Baltimore City Police Department Crime Laboratory

20
and the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory. The

Percent of Items
Baltimore City Crime Laboratory performs quantitative analyses 15

on all drug items greater than 1/4 ounce or if more than 30 10

dosage units are present in a case, especially heroin seizures. The
5
Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory expresses purity in
terms of free base and has a policy of “routinely” performing 0

.1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100
quantitative analyses for heroin and cocaine submissions.
Figure 4.1 presents heroin purity results for a total of 1,477 Purity (%)
drug items reported by the Baltimore City Police Department
Crime Laboratory in 2002. The average purity of heroin
reported in Baltimore City was 49%, unchanged from the
4.2 COCAINE PURITY
average purity reported in 2001. There is a peak between 10%
and 20% and another cluster of items around 70–80%. These The following figures present cocaine purity for items
data are indicative of two grades of heroin available in reported by six NFLIS laboratories—the Texas Department
Baltimore, a finding supported by other sources (CEWG, 2003). of Public Safety (DPS), the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory,
The higher purity heroin is said to be used by inhalers, while the the Illinois State Police Division of Forensic Services–Chicago
lower purity drugs contain a higher proportion of adulterants laboratory, the Baltimore City Police Department Crime
and diluents and are preferred by heroin injectors. Laboratory, and the Massachusetts State Police Crime
Laboratory. These cocaine purity data include both powder
cocaine and crack.
Figure 4.1 Heroin purity, 2002: Baltimore City Police Department
Figure 4.3 describes cocaine purity for the 367 items reported
Crime Laboratory.
by the Texas DPS laboratory system during 2002. The Texas
25 DPS laboratories typically conduct quantitative analyses for
20
substances of 200 grams or more. There is a sharp peak of
cocaine items reported between 60% and 75%. Overall, the
Percent of Items

15 average cocaine purity was 60%, up slightly from 56% in 2001.

10

5
Figure 4.3 Cocaine purity, 2002: Texas DPS.

25
0
.1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100

20
Percent of Items

Purity (%)
15

Figure 4.2 shows heroin purity among 971 items reported 10

by the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory in 2002. 5

Heroin purity reported by the Massachusetts State Police was
0
fairly evenly distributed. There was a peak around 35–40% and
.1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100

another slight peak at 70–75%. Overall, the average heroin

purity in 2002 was 47%, the same average heroin purity reported Purity (%)

by Massachusetts in 2001.
   

18
 Figure 4.4 shows cocaine purity for the 1,061 items reported Figure 4.6 provides cocaine purity for 447 items reported
by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory during 2002. The by the Baltimore City Police Department Crime Laboratory
Arkansas State Crime Laboratory typically conducts a during 2002, with peaks at 60–65% and 85–90%. Overall,
quantitative analysis if the exhibit contains an amount in which the average purity of cocaine reported by the Baltimore City
possession with intent to deliver is charged. The distribution for laboratory during 2002 was 67%, an increase from an average
cocaine purity reflects a peak of items reported between 65% purity of 61% in 2001.
and 80%. Overall, the average cocaine purity reported by
Arkansas in 2002 was 59%. Figure 4.6 Cocaine purity, 2002: Baltimore City Police
Department Crime Laboratory.
Figure 4.4 Cocaine purity, 2002: Arkansas State Crime 25
Laboratory.
20
25

Percent of Items
15
20
Percent of Items

10
15
5
10
0

.1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100
5

0 Purity (%)
.1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100

Purity (%)
Figure 4.7 presents purity analyses for 1,660 cocaine items
reported by the Massachusetts State Police in 2002, a laboratory
Figure 4.5 describes the cocaine purity distribution for that routinely performs quantitative analysis on cocaine
85 items reported by the Illinois State Police–Chicago submissions and expresses purity in terms of free base. The
laboratory during 2002, which typically restricts purity analysis average cocaine purity reported by Massachusetts during 2002
to cocaine items greater than 1 kilogram. Similar to the was 48%, up from an average of 42% in 2001.
distribution for Texas, there was a pronounced peak between
60% and 80%. The average cocaine purity reported by the Figure 4.7 Cocaine purity, 2002: Massachusetts State Police
Chicago laboratory during 2002 was 67%, compared to 69% Crime Laboratory.
25
in 2001.
20
Percent of Items

Figure 4.5 Cocaine purity, 2002: Illinois State Police–

15
Chicago Laboratory.
25
10

20
5
Percent of Items

15
0
.1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100

10
Purity (%)
5

0
Cocaine
.1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100

Purity (%)
   

19
 Section 5 DRUGS IDENTIFIED
80%
70%
NFLIS provides the ability to analyze 60%

drugs identified by laboratories in 50%

strategically relevant locations, 40%

30%
including large U.S. cities. The drug
20%
analyses results discussed here
10%
were reported by NFLIS laboratories 0%
Seattle
in cities across the country,
including Seattle, San Diego,
Denver, Austin, St. Louis, Chicago,
New Orleans, Miami, Baltimore,
and New York City.

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
In addition to describing national and regional drug analyses San Diego

results, NFLIS can analyze drugs identified by laboratories in

specific locations such as large metropolitan areas. The following
analysis presents the distribution of the four major drugs—
cannabis/THC, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine—
for NFLIS laboratories located in selected U.S. cities.
These include:
■ New York City (New York Police Department Crime

Laboratory),
■ Seattle (Washington State Patrol–Seattle Laboratory),

■ San Diego (San Diego Police Department Crime

Laboratory),
■ St. Louis (St. Louis Police Department Crime Laboratory),

■ Chicago (Illinois State Police–Chicago Laboratory),

■ Baltimore (Baltimore City Police Department Crime

Laboratory),
   

■ Miami (Miami–Dade Police Department Crime Laboratory),

■ New Orleans (New Orleans Police Department Crime

Laboratory),
■ Denver (Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory), and

■ Austin, Texas (Austin Police Department Crime Laboratory

and Texas Department of Public Safety–Austin Laboratory).

20
B Y L O C AT I O N

80%
70%
80%
60%
70%
50%
60%
40%
50%
80% 30%
40%
70% 20%
80% 30%
60% 10%
70% 20%
50% 0%
60% 80% 10% New York City
50% 0% 40%
70%
Chicago
40% 30%
60%
30% 20%
50%
20% 10%
40%
10% 0%
30% Baltimore
0% 20%
Denver
80% 10%

70% 0%
St. Louis
60%
50%
80%
40%
70%
30% 80%
60%
20% 70%
50%
10% 60%
40%
0% 50%
Austin
30%
40%
20%
30%
10%
20%
0%
New Orleans 10%
0%
Miami
Cannabis/THC
Cocaine
Heroin
Methamphetamine

Among the cities shown in this analysis, the highest relative Over a third of drug items reported in Baltimore (35%)
percentages of cannabis/THC were reported in two coastal were identified as heroin, the highest percentage of these
   

cities. More than half of drug items in San Diego (53%) and
New Orleans (52%) were identified as cannabis/THC. The
highest relative percentage of cocaine was reported in Miami
(68%), followed by New York City (50%), Denver (47%),
St. Louis (46%), Baltimore (45%), Austin (45%), and
Seattle (40%).
selected locations. About 19% of drug items reported in
Chicago and 14% of items reported in New York City were
identified as heroin. The highest relative percentage of
methamphetamine was reported in Seattle (37%), followed
by San Diego (23%).

21
 SUMMARY
This NFLIS report presents drug analysis results conducted by
state and local laboratories during 2002. These results can inform
a variety of drug-related issues including national and regional
drug trafficking and abuse patterns, the diversion of substances
available in pharmaceutical form, and drug combinations.
Individual laboratory data provide information on drug purity as
well as drugs reported by location. As an initial step toward
including federal laboratory data in NFLIS, results are also
presented from STRIDE, a DEA program that collects chemical
analysis results from DEA laboratories across the country.
During 2002, the top four drugs identified by state and local
forensic laboratories—cannabis/THC, cocaine, methampheta-
mine, and heroin—represented nearly 85% of all drug items.
After taking into account the population of each census region,
substantial variation exists across these major drugs. The South
reported the highest rate of cocaine items per 100,000 population,
the West the highest rate of methamphetamine, the Northeast
the highest rate of heroin, and the Midwest the highest rate of
cannabis/THC. Information is also presented on commonly
diverted pharmaceuticals such as narcotic analgesics and
benzodiazepines. Of the 25 most commonly reported drugs,
15 were controlled drugs available in pharmaceutical products,
most commonly alprazolam, oxycodone, and hydrocodone.
In addition to tracking drugs identified nationally and
regionally, NFLIS data can also be used to describe changes in
local drug patterns. For example, this report describes how heroin
purity in selected laboratories, such as Baltimore and Massachu-
setts, remained largely unchanged from 2001 to 2002. Findings
from NFLIS also show significant variation among major
drugs reported by laboratories in metropolitan areas. For
instance, cocaine represented nearly 70% of drugs reported
in Miami, while heroin accounted for 35% of drugs reported
in Baltimore.
NFLIS will continue to improve through several major
objectives. The first is the ongoing enhancement of the NFLIS
Interactive Data Site (IDS), which allows the DEA and
participating forensic laboratories to run parameterized queries
against the NFLIS database. During 2003, we will increase the
flexibility by which NFLIS data can be analyzed, making the IDS
web accessible and introducing a new interagency information
   
exchange forum. We will also continue recruitment of all state and
local forensic laboratories that conduct drug analyses, with the
goal of integrating federal forensic laboratories into NFLIS as
well. Finally, we will maintain efforts to enhance the types of data
reported to NFLIS, including collecting drug seizure quantity and
drug purity from a larger proportion of NFLIS laboratories.
22
REFERENCES
Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG). (2003).
Epidemiologic trends in drug abuse. Volume 2: Proceedings of
the Community Epidemiology Work Group (NIH Publication
No. 03-5110A). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). (2003). Mortality
data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2001 (DAWN
Series D-23, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 03-3781).
Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). (2003). The DAWN
report. Narcotic Analgesics. pp. 1-8. Washington, DC:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Studies.
Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). (2002). Emergency
Department Trends From the Drug Abuse Warning Network ,
Preliminary Estimates January–June 2002 (DAWN Series
D-22, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 03-3779). Rockville,
MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
IMS Health. (2002). National Prescription Audit Database.
Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (2003).
Monitoring the future: National results on adolescent drug
use. Overview of key findings, 2002 (NIH Publication No.
03-5374). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Studies. (2001). Summary of findings from
the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
(NHSDA Series H-13, DHHS Publication No. (SMA)
01-3549). Rockville, MD: Author.
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). (2001). Drug
trafficking in the United States. Retrieved August 21, 2002,
from http://www.dea.gov/pubs/intel/01020/index.html#c2
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (2002). System to
Retrieve Information Drug Evidence II (STRIDE).
Appendix A
NATIONAL ESTIMATES METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the methods used for producing the
national and regional estimates for drugs analyzed by state
and local forensic laboratories. This includes processes related to
the sample selection, weighting, and imputation and adjustment
procedures.
RTI International, under contract with the DEA, began
implementing NFLIS in September 1997. Results from a 1998
survey provided laboratory-specific information, including
annual caseload figures, used to establish a national sampling
frame of all state and local forensic laboratories that routinely
perform solid dosage drug analyses. A representative probability
proportional to size (PPS) sample was drawn on the basis of
annual cases analyzed per laboratory, resulting in a NFLIS
national sample of 29 state laboratory systems and 31 local
laboratories, a total of 165 individual laboratories (see Appendix
B for a list of sampled and non-sampled NFLIS laboratories).
Only the data for those laboratories that reported drug analysis
data for 6 or more months during the year were included in the
national estimates.
WEIGHTING PROCEDURES
Data were weighted with respect to both the original
sampling design and nonresponse in order to compute design-
consistent, nonresponse-adjusted estimates. Weighted prevalence
estimates were produced for drug cases and drug items analyzed
by state and local forensic laboratories during 2002. A separate
item-level and case-level weight was computed for each sample
laboratory or laboratory system using caseload information
obtained from an updated laboratory survey administered in
2002. These survey results allowed for the case- and item-level
weights to be post-stratified to reflect current levels of
laboratory activity. Item-level prevalence estimates were
computed using the item-level weights, and case-level estimates
were computed using the case-level weights.
DRUG REPORT CUTOFF
Not all drugs are reported by laboratories with a sufficient
frequency to allow reliable estimates to be computed. For some
drugs, such as marijuana and cocaine, thousands of items are
reported annually, allowing for reliable national prevalence
estimates to be computed. Many other substances have 100 or
fewer annual observations for the entire sample. A prevalence
estimate based upon such few observations is not likely to be
reliable and thus was not included with the national estimates.
The method for evaluating the cutoff point involved an analysis
using the coefficient of variation, or CV, which is the ratio
between the standard error of an estimate and the estimate itself.
As a rule, drug estimates with a CV greater than 0.5 are
suppressed and not shown in the tables.
IMPUTATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Due to technical and other reporting issues, several
laboratories did not report data for every month during 2002.
These factors resulted in missing monthly data, which are a
concern for presenting national estimates of drug prevalence.
Imputations were performed separately by drug for laboratories
missing monthly data, using drug-specific proportions generated
from laboratories reporting a full year of data.
While most forensic laboratories report case-level analyses
in a consistent manner, a small number of laboratories do not
produce item-level counts that are comparable to those
submitted by the vast majority of laboratories. Most laboratories
report items in terms of the number of vials of the particular
pill, yet a few laboratories report the count of the individual pills
themselves as “items.”
Since the case-level counts across laboratories are comparable,
they were used to develop item-level counts for the few
laboratories that count items differently. For those laboratories,
it was assumed that drug-specific ratios of cases to items should
be similar to laboratories serving similarly sized areas. Item-to-
case ratios for each drug were produced for the similarly sized
laboratories, and these drug-specific ratio were then used to
adjust the drug item counts for the relevant laboratories.
   
23
 Appendix B
participating and reporting laboratories
Lab Lab
State Type Lab Name Reporting State Type Lab Name Reporting
AK State Alaska Department of Public Safety (Anchorage) MN State Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (2 sites) X
AL State Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (9 sites)* X MO State Missouri State Highway Patrol (6 sites)* X
Local MSSC Regional Crime Lab (Joplin)
AR State Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (Little Rock)* X Local South East Missouri Regional Crime Lab (Cape Girardeau)*
CA State California Department of Justice (10 sites)* X Local St. Charles County Criminalistics Lab (St. Charles) X
Local Fresno County Sheriff’s Forensic Lab (Fresno) X Local St. Louis Police Department (St. Louis)* X
Local Kern County District Attorney’s Office (Bakersfield) MS State Mississippi Department of Public Safety (4 sites)* X
Local Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (4 sites)* X
Local Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office (2 sites)* X MT State Montana Forensic Science Division (1 site) X
Local San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office (San Bernardino)* X
Local San Diego Police Department (San Diego)* X NC State North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (2 sites)* X
Local San Francisco Police Department (San Francisco)* NJ State New Jersey State Police (4 sites)*
Local San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (San Mateo) X Local Hudson County Procecutor’s Office Forensic Lab (Jersey City)
Local Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office (San Jose) X Local Newark Police Department (Newark) X
CO Local Aurora Police Department (Aurora) Local Union County Prosecutor’s Office (Westfield)* X
Local Denver Police Department (Denver)* X NM State New Mexico Department of Public Safety (Sante Fe)* X
Local Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (Golden)
NV Local Las Vegas Police Department (Las Vegas)* X
CT State Connecticut Department of Public Safety (Hartford)* X
NY Local Erie County Central Police Services Lab (Buffalo) X
FL State Florida Department of Law Enforcement (8 sites)* X Local Nassau County Police Department (Mineola)* X
Local Broward County Sheriff’s Office (Ft. Lauderdale)* X Local New York Police Department Crime Laboratory** X
Local Indian River Crime Lab at Indian River Local Onondaga County Center for Forensic Sciences (Syracuse)* X
Community College (Ft. Pierce) X
Local Miami-Dade Police Department (Miami)* X OH State Ohio State Highway Patrol (Columbus)* X
Local Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory (Largo) X Local Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (Canton) X
Local Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office (Sarasota) Local Columbus Police Department (Columbus)
Local Hamilton County Coroners Office (Cincinnati)* X
GA State Georgia State Bureau of Investigation (7 sites)* X Local Lake County Regional Forensic Lab (Painesville)* X
HI Local Honolulu Police Department (Honolulu) X Local Mansfield Police Department Crime Lab (Mansfield) X
Local Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab (Dayton)* X
IA State Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (Des Moines)* X Local Newark Police Department Forensic Services (Newark)
ID State Idaho State Police (3 sites)* X OR State Oregon State Police Forensic Services Division (8 sites)* X
IL State Illinois State Police (8 sites)* X PA Local Allegheny County Coroner’s Office (Pittsburgh)* X
Local DuPage County Sheriff’s Office (Wheaton) Local Philadelphia Police Department (Philadelphia)* X
Local Northern Illinois Police Crime Lab (Chicago)* X
SC State South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (Columbia)* X
IN State Indiana State Police Laboratory (4 sites)* X Local Charleston Police Department (Charleston) X
KS State Kansas Bureau of Investigation (3 sites) X SD Local Rapid City Police Department (Rapid City) X
Local Johnson County Sheriff’s Office (Mission) X
Local Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center (Witchita) X TX State Texas Dept. of Public Safety (13 sites)* X
Local Austin Police Department Crime Laboratory (Austin)* X
KY State Kentucky State Police (6 sites)* X Local Bexar County Criminal Investigations Lab (San Antonio)*
Local Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office (Houston) X
LA State Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory (Baton Rouge)* X Local Pasandena Police Department (Pasadena)
Local Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory (New Iberia)* X
Local New Orleans Police Department Crime Lab (New Orleans)* X UT State Utah State Crime Lab (Salt Lake City)
MA State Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2 sites)* X VA State Virginia Division Forensic Science (4 sites)* X
State Massachusetts Department of State Police (Sudbury)* X
Local University of Massachusetts Medical Center (Worchester) X WA State Washington State Patrol (6 sites)* X

MD Local Anne Arundel County Police Department (Millersville)* X WI State Wisconsin Department of Justice (3 sites)
Local Baltimore City Police Department (Baltimore)* X WV State West Virginia State Police (South Charleston) X
Local Baltimore County Police Department (Towson) X
   

WY State Wyoming State Crime Laboratory (Cheyenne) X

ME State Maine Department of Human Services (Augusta)* X
MI State Michigan State Police (7 sites)* X
Local Detroit Police Department (Detroit)* X

* Laboratory is part of our national sample.

** The New York City Crime lab is part of the national sample and currently reports summary data.

24
Appendix C
NFLIS Benefits & limitations
BENEFITS
The systematic collection and analysis of drug chemistry
data can improve our understanding of the nation’s illegal
drug problem. NFLIS can also serve as a critical resource for
supporting drug scheduling policy and drug enforcement
initiatives both nationally and in specific communities around
the country. A major advantage of the NFLIS data is that they
reflect the results of chemical analyses conducted by forensic
laboratories and therefore have a high degree of validity.
The DEA and state and local forensic laboratories are
increasingly being served by the NFLIS database. The NFLIS
data can also benefit regional, state, and local drug task forces as
well as single-agency operations.
Specifically, NFLIS will help the drug control community
achieve its mission by:
■ providing detailed information on the extent and variation
of analyzed controlled substances over time and across
geographic areas—information that can be used to support
drug scheduling actions;
■ identifying emerging drug problems and changes in drug
availability in a timely fashion;
■ monitoring the diversion of legitimately marketed drugs into
illicit markets;
■ providing regional, state, and local trends of drug trafficking
and abuse; and
■ supplementing information from other drug data sources
including the DEA System to Retrieve Information from
Drug Evidence II (STRIDE), the Drug Abuse Warning
Network (DAWN), the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health (NSDUH), the Monitoring the Future Survey, and
the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program.
NFLIS is an opportunity for state and local laboratories to
participate in a useful and high-visibility initiative. Participating
laboratories receive regular reports that summarize data from
their specific laboratories, as well as national and regional data.
Through the Interactive Data Site (IDS), laboratories are given
access to the NFLIS database, which provides information
about local, regional, and national trends in drug seizures,
purchases, and recoveries by law enforcement agencies.
Laboratories are also able to run customized queries on their
own data, a feature useful for managing current workloads as
well as for planning future needs.
LIMITATIONS
NFLIS has limitations that must be considered when
interpreting findings generated from the database.
■ Currently, NFLIS includes only state and local forensic
laboratories. Drug analyses conducted by federal laboratories
are not included. Plans to solicit the participation of Federal
laboratories are being developed and may be implemented
during 2003.
■ NFLIS currently includes drug chemistry results from
completed analyses only. Drug evidence obtained by law
enforcement but not analyzed by laboratories is not included
in the database.
■ National and regional estimates may be subject to variation
associated with sample estimates, including nonresponse
bias.
■ For results presented in Section 2, the absolute and relative
frequency of analyzed results for individual drugs can in part
be a function of the laboratories’ participation in NFLIS.
■ State and local policies that relate to the enforcement and
prosecution of specific drugs can affect the types of drug
evidence submitted to laboratories for analysis.
■ Laboratory policies and procedures for handling drug
evidence vary. Some laboratories analyze all evidence
submitted, while others analyze only selected items.
■ Laboratories vary with respect to the records they maintain.
For example, some laboratories’ automated records include
the weight of the sample selected for analysis (e.g., the
weight of one of five bags of powder), while others record
total weight.
   
25
 Appendix D
NFLIS Interactive Data Site
The NFLIS Interactive Data Site (IDS) was made available
to all participating NFLIS laboratories in January 2001. The
IDS allows NFLIS laboratories to run parameterized queries
for their own data at the individual case level as well as calculate
aggregate regional and national results. Generally, laboratories
will not have access to other laboratories’ case-level data.
However, multiple laboratories within a state system will have
access to each others data consistent with policies set by the
headquarters laboratory. Participating NFLIS laboratories that
have not begun submitting data are limited to regional and
national-level queries.
The IDS is implemented as a secure website located on a
restricted server that is accessible only through a direct dial-in
connection. A toll-free telephone number is provided for
participating laboratories to use. Each participating laboratory
is provided with a laboratory-specific user name and password.
The IDS provides the capacity to query the data using
standardized queries that generate customized reports.
Laboratory staff can specify the time period, region, type
of laboratory, and drug type to customize these queries.
Below is a screen shot of an IDS query that can be used
to generate a table of the 25 most frequently identified drugs
for state laboratories in the South.
   
26
IDS ENHANCEMENTS
The IDS is continually being improved and developed. To
better serve the laboratories and the drug control community,
we will be providing World Wide Web access to the IDS, an
upgrade that will be completed by summer 2003. This upgrade
will provide access to laboratories currently unable to access the
IDS because they do not have dial-up networking capabilities,
or because of security concerns. Laboratories that have high-
speed/broad-band web access will experience significantly
better performance.
Another forthcoming IDS enhancement is the addition
of an aninteragency information exchange forum. Initially, the
site will be used to post reports, technical notices, or other
drug control actions and materials approved by DEA. This is
intended to promote communication between NFLIS labora-
tories, DEA, and the drug control community. Participating
laboratories are encouraged to submit suggestions for improve-
ment by using the feedback page in the IDS, by sending
an e-mail to NFLIS@rti.org, or by calling Al Bethke at
(919) 485-7737.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared under contract DEA-97-C-0059,
Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice.
Points of view or opinions expressed in this document do not
necessarily represent the official position of the DEA or the Drug Enforcement Administration
U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Diversion Control
At DEA, Liqun Wong contributed to the report and 600 Army Navy Drive, E-6341
provided oversight for all preparation stages. At RTI, Kevin Arlington, VA 22202
Strom was the major contributor to the report and task leader
for its production. Valley Rachal provided oversight and Attention: Liqun Wong, DEA Project Officer
guidance and Lisa Fornnarino assisted with the report Phone: 202-307-7176
preparation. Albert Bethke and Jeffrey Ancheta oversaw the Fax: 202-353-1263
database preparation and Celia Eicheldinger provided statistical E-mail: lwong@leo.gov
analyses and review. Michael Baylor, Carol Council, and Pamela
Lattimore provided review and technical inputs. Shari Lambert
oversaw the graphical design and Joanne Studders edited the
report.

PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTICE

RTI
All material appearing in this report is in the public domain
Health, Social, and Economics Research Unit
and may be reproduced or copied without permission from the
3040 Cornwallis Road, PO Box 12194
DEA. However, this publication may not be reproduced or
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
distributed without the specific, written authorization of the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of
Attention: Valley Rachal, Project Director
Justice. Citation of the source is appreciated. Suggested citation:
Phone: 919-485-7712
Fax: 919-485-7700
Strom, K.J., Wong, L., Fornnarino, L, Eicheldinder, C.,
E-mail: jvr@rti.org
Bethke, A., Ancheta, J., and Rachal, V. (2003). The National
Forensic Laboratory Information System: 2002 Annual Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. May 2003

OBTAINING ADDITIONAL COPIES OF PUBLICATION

Copies may be obtained, free of charge, from RTI or the
DEA. For comments or suggestions on this or future reports,
for more information on NFLIS, or to become a participating
laboratory, please use the following contact information.    

27